Skip to main content
Answer

NEAT Support for Mapping Asset Types to Equipment in CDF Core Data Model (cdf_cmd)

  • March 5, 2025
  • 6 replies
  • 111 views
Andre Alves
MVP
Forum|alt.badge.img+14

Hi Neat Team,

I know you are very busy, as I’ve been following all the commits and changes in the repo, and I really appreciate all the work you’re doing.

We are probably going to be working on migrating from an asset-centric data model to a new domain data model that extends cdf_cdm, and one challenge we anticipate is that the existing model does not have an explicit equipment concept—only assets.

Could you confirm if there are already plans within NEAT to address this, or if we can create a custom mapper using metadata.assetType to classify certain assets as equipment during transformation?

Our proposed approach involves:

  • Using metadata.assetType to filter and classify specific assets as equipment (e.g., pumps, motors, valves).
  • Mapping asset metadata into the equipment structure in the new model.
  • Retaining parent-child relationships where relevant.

I understand this might not be a priority right now, but since this will likely be one of the tasks we’ll have to tackle soon, I wanted to check if this approach makes sense or if there’s a better way to handle it within NEAT.

Thanks in advance for your insights!

Best answer by Andre Alves

Thanks again, ​@Anders Albert ! You always bring valuable insights and great direction.


Take your time to reply—I know you’ve been very busy, so no rush here. Looking forward to your thoughts when you have the chance!

 

If I want to design a new enterprise data model with, for instance, these new concepts—gearbox, generator, high-speed shaft, main shaft, blade, rotor, and solar panel—should I introduce them as new concepts first and then categorize them as asset types?

Based on your previous message, I could keep them as asset categories instead of introducing separate equipment concepts. Would the following classification make sense?

  • Mechanical Assets: Gearbox, high-speed shaft, main shaft, blade, rotor.
  • Electrical Assets: Generator, solar panel.

Would this type of classification align with your approach to minimizing complexity while ensuring clarity in the data model?

Additionally, could you clarify how equipment should be introduced into this structure and whether it should be mapped as an extension of the equipment concept within the core data model?

For example, how would the following be structured?

  • Wind Turbine (Concept):
    • Equipment: Hydraulic systems, lubrication systems, cooling units, pitch control systems.
  • Solar Panel System (Concept):
    • Equipment: Inverters, tracking systems, battery storage units.

know there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, as it depends on the company’s needs and the standards followed when defining our approaches. This is just to help me gain insights into best practices.

 

André Alves
Mithila Jayalath
Øystein Aspøy

6 replies

Øystein Aspøy
Committed
Forum|alt.badge.img+4

Hi Andre. Great that you are also working on the classic to DM transition.
Is not the idea to address the equipment or type of asset in the next level of modelling. The Industrial/Domain/Chifos/ISO layer of CDF?

Mithila Jayalath
Anders Albert
Seasoned Practitioner
Forum|alt.badge.img
  • Anders Albert
  • Seasoned Practitioner
  • March 6, 2025

Thanks we appreciate the kind words.

If I understand you correctly, the issue is that the standardized move from asset-centric to the standardized CogniteCore extension does not include equipment. There is equipment in the new model, but yes we do not populate it as we treat everything as assets.

Yes, we are planning to address this. However, for the next two weeks we will mainly focus on gathering feedback by traveling and visiting users. This means there will be less activity in the development of neat, and reduced responsiveness here.

The approach we are considering sound very close to what you are stipulating above. One thing to keep in mind is to avoid introducing a lot of new concepts. In asset-centric, we have assets which covers all types of asset and equipment. In data modeling, you get asset and equipment out of the box. If you go from one to say 50 different concepts, it will likely introduce a lot of complexity which will be hard to handle. Instead, try to introduce as few new concepts as possible, and make these new concepts support the use cases you have and plan to execute. I expect it will be easier to split a concept like Asset into mechanical and electrical asset, than to go the other way around.

 

 

Mithila Jayalath
Andre Alves
MVP
Forum|alt.badge.img+14
  • Andre Alves
  • Author
  • MVP
  • March 6, 2025

Hi Øystein, Great to hear from you—it’s been a while since the IMPACT 2024 event!

Thanks for your response! I agree that equipment classification could be handled at a next level. However, since the NEAT team is also working on migration, they may propose a standardized way to address this during the Enterprise Data Model modeling phase.

I think it would be valuable for us to discuss possible approaches to ensure alignment. Considering that some clients may want to accelerate their migration process. Are you already working on this, or is it something planned for the future?

Looking forward to your thoughts!

André Alves
Andre Alves
MVP
Forum|alt.badge.img+14
  • Andre Alves
  • Author
  • MVP
  • Answer
  • March 7, 2025

Thanks again, ​@Anders Albert ! You always bring valuable insights and great direction.


Take your time to reply—I know you’ve been very busy, so no rush here. Looking forward to your thoughts when you have the chance!

 

If I want to design a new enterprise data model with, for instance, these new concepts—gearbox, generator, high-speed shaft, main shaft, blade, rotor, and solar panel—should I introduce them as new concepts first and then categorize them as asset types?

Based on your previous message, I could keep them as asset categories instead of introducing separate equipment concepts. Would the following classification make sense?

  • Mechanical Assets: Gearbox, high-speed shaft, main shaft, blade, rotor.
  • Electrical Assets: Generator, solar panel.

Would this type of classification align with your approach to minimizing complexity while ensuring clarity in the data model?

Additionally, could you clarify how equipment should be introduced into this structure and whether it should be mapped as an extension of the equipment concept within the core data model?

For example, how would the following be structured?

  • Wind Turbine (Concept):
    • Equipment: Hydraulic systems, lubrication systems, cooling units, pitch control systems.
  • Solar Panel System (Concept):
    • Equipment: Inverters, tracking systems, battery storage units.

know there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, as it depends on the company’s needs and the standards followed when defining our approaches. This is just to help me gain insights into best practices.

 

André Alves
Mithila Jayalath
Anders Albert
Seasoned Practitioner
Forum|alt.badge.img
  • Anders Albert
  • Seasoned Practitioner
  • March 11, 2025

I think both the approaches you stipulate sounds good. On how many concepts you introduce I would consider the following two criteria:

 

  1. What is needed to answer business questions this data need to answer to be valuable?
  1. How many custom properties are there for the concepts? For example, if there are no special properties for Gearbox, high-speed shaft, main shaft, blade, rotor, then a generic Equipment might be sufficient to capture all of them.
Mithila Jayalath
Andre Alves
MVP
Forum|alt.badge.img+14
  • Andre Alves
  • Author
  • MVP
  • March 11, 2025

Thanks, ​@Anders Albert Anders Albert!
Your insights make everything much clearer. I really appreciate it

André Alves
Terms & ConditionsCookie SettingsAccessibility statement